As if Taiwanese education were not dry enough and parents were not overprotective enough, groups are now balking at the government’s initiative to increase the frequency and duration of school field trips.
However, some of their points are valid.
The Tourism Bureau last month said it is planning to help revitalize domestic tourism by increasing the frequency of field trips from once per year to once per semester, and by extending trips from one to two days. The policy is to take effect in February next year and apply to more than 3,000 schools.
More school trips are definitely a good thing, as it takes students out of their classroom monotony and endless exams, and exposes them to the real world. Practical education is important to Taiwanese students’ competitiveness, and it will only enrich their educational experience.
However, perhaps “revitalizing domestic tourism” is not the proper reason to implement the policy, as critics are saying that the government is prioritizing tourism over children’s education by “trying to turn the trips into a tool for saving domestic tourism,” New Taipei City Education Union secretary-general Lee Man-li (李曼麗) said.
While the trips would definitely boost the number of visitors to various destinations, it is a convoluted way of doing it, as it essentially forces children to take these trips instead of devising sustainable and productive ways to attract more “real” tourists, domestic and foreign. This is like requiring all employees of a company to buy from their own shops to boost revenue.
The destinations also need to be closely examined within an educational context to make sure they are actually beneficial to learning, instead of serving as tourist traps where students would be forced to spend money.
The government said that the policy would support the new curricula to be implemented in the next academic year, but with schools prone to odd decisions and society politically divided, the planning of these trips needs to be scrutinized.
Speaking of money, the government would also need to subsidize costs for poorer families — otherwise, it would create unnecessary burdens, as Lee correctly pointed out.
The two-day stay is also questionable, as it seems obvious that it is “recommended” so that groups spend money on lodging, but if the schools are confident that they have the resources and ability to ensure safety, it is not a bad thing for today’s overprotected children to try staying a night away from home, and for “helicopter” parents to try letting go of their children.
Critics say that younger children “need their parents’ care and parents are bound to be worried if their children spend the night away from home,” which is true, but this just enforces the idea of obsessive parenting that is creating mabaos (媽寶, “mama’s baby”): adults who were coddled so much growing up that they are incapable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their actions. One night away will not hurt them.
If done properly, these trips are wonderful opportunities, and schools should take them seriously and try to make use of their benefits, instead of treating them as something the government forces upon them. With that attitude, mishaps will happen, proving the critics right.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations